Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 9:00:57 AM

On this Wisconsin mess. Collective bargaining... what exactly is this? I'm being honest.... no sarcasm intended. Hound, you probably have a real life perspective on this. Could someone please "enlighten" me? I listen to all this crap on the news but, nobody really defines what Collective Bargaining is.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 10:13:21 AM

I believe it is merely a group of people formally coming together to negotiate as a group as opposed to negotiating individually. The belief is that a group of people negotiating together has more power than a single individual negotiating alone. Of course, implicit in this is the idea that if one person walks off the job, no big deal. But the threat of a large group of people strike and potentially shutting down the operation -- that gets their attention. But, this is why the Unions fight so hard for membership. The more members, the more power to negotiate. It becomes much easier for them to make more and more outrageous demands. And as these demands are met by an anxious employer, the Unions believe that this attracts more members. What started out to protect workers rights to a safe, reasonable workplace and a decent living wage has turned into something else.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 12:46:41 PM

But what about the majority that work for companies, the company says this is our benefit package (based on what they want to provide and can "afford") ... you have no choice other than work for someone else. Isn't that democracy and freedom? Why is it that "state" or "federal" workers need a union to "fight" for more benefits than the private sector? At the expense of tax payers, just to justify the union dues people pay. It is pure B.S.

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Thanks Hound
Date:	3/3/2011 3:31:43 PM

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 7:09:41 PM

That was a pretty good description..

Name:	muddauber -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 8:01:33 PM

Public sector workers get paid by tax dollars. Then they pay dues to unions to represent them to get the utmost they can. They produce nothing, generate no profits. The top most contributers to politicians, almost exclusively to Democrats, is unions. Yeah, I have a big problem with this and especially the terachers unions. Way too powerful, and we are getting a noticably inferior "product" in that our children are nowheres near as well educated as many other countries. Had a foreign exchange student live with me about 9 years ago. His whole year here in a good school/district (university town) was not accepted by his country for credit. Enough said. Destroy their bloddy union and be done with it. Worry about educating our children. But not one blasted penny more for education till things change.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 8:25:13 PM

Tell us how you really feel about this.. don't hold back, Pal.. BTW, I agree 100%.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	But
Date:	3/3/2011 9:54:55 PM

Do you blame the Unions or do you blame school systems that have no standardized teacher evaluations? If there are no standardized evaluations, then whose fault is it that there is no real way to take action against bad teachers? I'm not aware of any situation where a school system attempted to institute a standardized evaluation and the Union voted it down, are you? And BTW, I don't think you can say that public employees produce nothing -- what about firefighters, police, and don't teachers educate the children? No, they don't "produce" a widget, but they certainly have an important job to do. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say they produce nothing.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/3/2011 10:36:13 PM

Hound's description of collective bargaining is accurate but what is missing is why government workers need to collectively bargain in the first place. My view is that they don't and they should not. The original concept with unions and collective bargaining was an individual worker had little recourse against the evil corporation that could take advantage of them to generate profits in excess of what would ordinarily be earned. So they come together collectively to fight for fair wages, decent benefits and working conditions, etc. However, none of that is necessary with employees working for government agencies as civil service rules and regulations already protect them from abuse. As has been pointed out here before what we have is unions essentially at war with the taxpayers. They use collective bargaining to extract ever more generous and fiscally unsustainable salary and benefits in collusion with politicians in exchange for campaign contributions and other spending to support their reelection to office. It is money laundering pure and simple.

And the end result of years of government employee unions is that the former contract has been turned upside down. Historically, working for the government paid less than the private sector but had slightly better benefits and more job security. Nowadays, government workers earn more, have better benefits and better job security than those that pay their salaries. Unions take their dues and spend hundreds of millions to elect Democrats that then give them more income and benefits, until federal, state and local governments are bankrupt. We are like Greece in that regard and it is unsustainable and patently unfair to the average workers that has to pay for this ridiculous system of greed and avarice. Government workers should not be allowed to form unions.

Name:	muddauber -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/4/2011 6:44:52 AM

That certaintly would cover what my response would have been to hound, only said much better.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/4/2011 7:33:32 AM

But that wasn't the question. The question was "what is collective bargaining". The rest is just your opinion.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/4/2011 8:06:58 AM

I think it can be supported with facts, even if it was MM opinion. The bigger question now is do you disagree with that point of view? It is hard to argue that it is not true ... but have at it.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts?
Date:	3/4/2011 8:16:06 AM

I would certainly agree that federal employees don't need a union. I really don't know enough about other public employees to express a view whether they need a Union or not. But I will say this -- the failure of state and local governments to negotiate a good agreement does not justify crushing unions. It just is an indications of their inability to negotiate. They have the same option of walking away from the table as the Unions do when what being proposed is unacceptable. Maybe they lack intestinal fortitude?

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Intestinal fortitude?
Date:	3/4/2011 8:49:19 AM

How does one negotiate his/her way out of paying bills if you are broke??

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Missed my point entirely
Date:	3/4/2011 10:21:22 AM

Hound, you don't seem to get my point. There is no adverse relationship in the negotiation process when Democrats are in charge which is exactly the problem. It is a symbiotic relationship. Democrats are willing to use taxpayer dollars to financially reward unions for their support of the reelection of the Democrats. They do so by providing ever sweeter salary and benefits packages to union members who in turn pay dues which the unions in turn use overwhelmingly to support Democrats in every election. None of this is opinion, it is based on facts.

The only time it becomes contentious is when a Republican is elected and has to face the fiscal nightmare that the unions and Democrats left them. None of this is opinion, it is a fact.

Republicans can choose to use the elimination of collective bargaining for benefits or even to eliminate the union in order to rein in out of control spending on lavish benefits if they can pass a law in their state doing so. That is a fact.

I think that is a good way to approach this tremendous problem. That is opinion.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Hound, help me out !
Date:	3/4/2011 1:01:18 PM

What is their to negotiate when it comes to "benefits" like healthcare and pensions.

I have worked for over 30 years ... they were what the company or firm was providing. I did not have a choice other than if I did not think they were good enough, I could go work elsewhere.

Some companies are better than others and the employee decides that in who they work for. No one is suggesting state or federal workers should have a terrible program ... but it should not be better than the private sector. After all it is paid by tax payers that work in the private sector ... so why should the program ever be better than those who have to fund it.

So again, what is there to negotiate? In a worst case scenario, a state takes away all benefits (not going to happen or is any one suggesting such) ... but if it did happen, then no one would want to work for the state, they would lose good employees that go to work elsewhere. So what is it that the union needs to negotiate?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Hound, help me out !
Date:	3/4/2011 5:29:00 PM

As I said, I'm not familiar enough with state and local employees pay and benefit structure to really say how necessary it is. I assume that there are other issues other than health care. Overtime, flex time, 4 day work weeks, telecommunting (for the office workers), discrimination complaint procedures, reviews, safety issues, etc, are just a few things that come to mind. WW, I'm sorry, but I think you are oversimplifying the problem. MM, yes I understand that you hate Democrats. Facts, such as the ones, you cite, are heavily influenced by the perspective of the presenter. So you'll have to excuse my confusing your "facts" and your "opinions".

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Hound, help me out !
Date:	3/4/2011 6:36:31 PM

I respect your point of view ... but the only point I continue to try and make is all the things you listed, are no different than the private sector. There are laws that protect employees in many of those cases. Employees do not need unions to protect them under the law.

I am not over simplifying it. Yes there are unions in the private sector, but mostly are in manufacturing, not for salaried professional employees. So why are they necessary to protect a "government" worker. Of all places, they will be protected more.

Bottom line, if the state does not make benefits competitive, then they will not retain workers or attract individuals to work for them.

I do not see how the union adds value. And I am not being critical, but you can not come up with one valid reason why they are necessary. I give you credit that you said they are not needed for federal workers ... I struggle why you would think there would still be a need at the state level.

My brother works for the state of NY ... he hates the union, but has no choice but to be a part of it.

He feels it drive under performance since there is no incentive to work harder than someone else, and there is no penalty for doing the bare minimum to get by, since everyone is treated the same and the union protects the employee from termination. It is very hard to fire someone even though it is a right to work state.

Good employees do not want or need a union, they want to be recognized and rewarded for their ability and performance. A players want to work with A players ... A's leave when there are only B's and C's ... and the union protects the B's and C's and why "most" government agencies get the bad wraps for inefficiency and lazy. I deal with it every day ... and yes I am sweet and nice .. :)

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Facts are facts
Date:	3/4/2011 10:23:58 PM

I know you have a problem recognizing facts so that was why I pointed them out in my post. Here is a simple test, is what I typed true whether it came from me or from an uber liberal like GF? If the answer is yes, then it is a fact and not an opinion. Now GF may not like these facts and he might not want to point them out, but they are still facts.

A minor point, but I do not hate Democrats. I don't hate anyone. I do detest the havoc that Democrats wreak on our country and our society. Sort of hate the sin but love the sinner.....

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos